On July 15, 2022, a jurisprudence was issued, determining the statute of limitation to voluntarily request the division of a patent based on provisions from Industrial Property Law (IPL) in force until November 2020, such limit is the stage of the substantive examination, it means no later than the granting notice is notified. This jurisprudence is enforceable for judges and magistrates since August 1, 2022.
This article briefly explains, what the jurisprudence solved and its scope from a legal perspective, allowing us to appreciate that, this decision clarifies important issues in divisional patents, determining the applicable criteria to be followed in conflicts ruled by the IPL in force until November 2020.
Jurisprudence is a case law interpretation made by a judge on the application or scope of a Law or a provision in a specific case. A jurisprudence by contradiction jurisprudence arises when two judges or courts publish resolutions with conflicting interpretations, whereby a higher judicial body or organ defines the criterion to be followed in the future.
In this case, all Mexican judges and courts must follow the interpretation of the Law for identical cases presented to them to resolve.
Two courts issued divergent criteria on the statute of limitation to voluntarily apply for a divisional patent, under provisions of the abrogated IPL:
Then the Federal Circuit Court, held that the right to claim for voluntary division of a patent arises from Paris Convention provisions [4, paragraph G)], and that an individual could request the division of a patent application at any time, since there is no statute of limitation set forth in the IPL and its regulations, and following the pro homine principle the must obtain the major benefit on his behalf.
However, this Court based its interpretation on a systemic analysis of the patenting procedure established in the IPL, reaching the conclusion that it is in the stage of the substantive examination where, among other analyses, an examiner must determine whether the patent meets the requirement of unity of invention and, if not, it may require the division of the patent, so that in the case of voluntary divisions, the appropriate time to request it is before the conclusion of the substantive examination.
Also considered that the contrary would create the risk of modifying the claims already analyzed allowing the risk of granting the applicant additional protection due to the voluntary division.
The Plenary of the Federal Circuit Courts was the higher body that unified the discrepant criteria by means of the contradiction of thesis 1/2021 published on July 22, 2022.
This body resolved that:
Therefore, the conclusion of the substantive examination is the limit for requesting the division of a patent application.
This jurisprudence is a mandatory criterion for Mexican judges and magistrates, which they will apply in identical cases.
This criterion became effective as of August 1, 2022, which means that as of that date identical cases must be resolved by Judges and Magistrates applying this criterion.
Two clarifications are in order:
The answer is NO because the cases analyzed concentrate on the provisions of the IPL. Secondly, the new Law, Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI), does contemplate the opportunity period to file for the division of patents.
According to the new LFPPI, the opportunity to divide a patent may occur in the following cases:
1.- as a response to a requirement of the IMPI itself, at the latest before the end of the term granted to give a response.
2.- As a voluntary request for division, it must be made:
a) Before the issuance of the resolution that denies, rejects, considers abandoned or withdrawn such application;
b) Within the term to respond to the official notice notifying the patent grant.
3.- Before an international application is considered withdrawn under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
The case law resolves a problem that arose between 2016 and 2020, with the application of the IPL, which although it does not affect applications filed under the LFPPI, it may lead to a review of divisional patents granted based on the IPL, to know if they may be subject to attacks from third parties based on this recent case law.
This jurisprudence is a mandatory criterion for Mexican judges and magistrates, which they will apply in identical cases as of August 1, 2022, l so that:
In addition, the conditions of the case under analysis must be repeated:
If the situation to be judged differs in any of these three points, then the mandatory application of the case law is not appropriate and the judge may cite it as a guide in his analysis, but the judge or magistrate may depart from the criterion.
This criterion became effective as of August 1, 2022, which means that from that date identical cases must be resolved by Judges and Magistrates applying this criterion.
Two clarifications are in order:
The answer is NO because the cases analyzed concentrate on the provisions of the IPL. Secondly, the new Law, Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPPI), does contemplate the opportunity period to file for the division of patents.
According to the new LFPPI, the opportunity to divide a patent may occur in the following cases:
1.- as a response to a requirement of the IMPI itself, at the latest before the end of the term granted to give a response.
2.- As a voluntary request for division, it must be made:
a) Before the issuance of the resolution that denies, rejects, considers abandoned, or withdrawn such application.
b) Within the term to respond to the official notice notifying the grant of the patent.
3.- Before an international application is considered withdrawn under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
The case law resolves a problem that arose between 2016 and 2020, with the application of the IPL, which although it does not affect applications filed under the LFPPI, it may lead to a review of divisional patents granted based on the IPL, to know if they can be subject to attacks from third parties based on this recent case law.